Well, it's not a shortcut, as you don't get there faster. You'll get to FI later if you reduce your earnings.
But nevertheless I think the plan has attractive attributes, in that you get more quality of life earlier. I wouldn't rely on an hypothetical number of a simulator at this point, simply because the last few years have not been average, and i don't think anybody expects the next few years to be average. However the first 10 years of FI are be the most decisive for success at the end of 30 years. (Sequence of return risk, etc.), so if you expect the first few years to be rather rough the real probability of succes would be lower.
So it's probably a good idea to think about what you Plan Bs could be. E.g. how difficult you think it would be to pick up where you left off in 3 or 5 years to increase your income again. Whether you have buffer in your expenses that would allow you to reduce them further. What you really want to avoid is getting into a downward spiral and doing nothing about it for 15 years, when it might become really difficult to get back on course.
So in general I think it's a good idea to delay FI if it helps you get some strongly needed quality of life back a bit earlier. But you should closely monitor average case/worst case scenarios and be willing to increase income again down the road (or else lower expenses). The easier it would be to get back to work at the current income the more likely I'd take that risk of a temperary FI. Probably also has something to do with age, below 40 I'd be more willing to try it than in mid to late 50s.